Gemara Clarity

Gittin 53a

גיטין נ״ג ע״א

Learn Gittin 53a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Gittin 53a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Why the משנה lists each fined case, and the debate between חזקיה and רבי יוחנן over היזק שאינו ניכר

Overview

The amud opens with two Sages arguing over whether the משנה lists מדמע (mixing תרומה into someone's food). One says it is the same as מטמא (making food impure), so there is no need to list it. The other says the payment is a קנס, and one קנס cannot be learned from another. The גמרא then shows, with a צריכא, that each of the three cases (מטמא, מדמע, מנסך) teaches something new, and does the same for a ברייתא in which מדמע was added later. Next, חזקיה and רבי יוחנן argue about היזק שאינו ניכר, damage you cannot see. חזקיה says the Torah makes such a damager pay and חכמים exempted the שוגג so he would report. רבי יוחנן says the Torah exempts him and חכמים fined the מזיד to stop abuse. Two sources, about כהנים who were מפגל and about work done with מי חטאת and the פרה אדומה, are brought against חזקיה, and both are answered. The amud ends as the גמרא begins quoting רבא about מי חטאת, and the quote continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

הַיְינוּ ״מְדַמֵּעַ״.

is the same as 'one who mixes in תרומה.'

וְאִידָּךְ – קְנָסָא הוּא,

And the other one: it is a penalty,

וּמִקְּנָסָא לָא יָלְפִינַן.

and we do not learn from one penalty [to another].

וּלְמַאן דְּיָלֵיף קְנָסָא מִקְּנָסָא –

And according to the one who learns a penalty from a penalty,

The steps (24)

  1. ResponseEnding of the question: making food impure is the same as mixing in תרומה
  2. ResolutionThe other opinion: it is a penalty, and penalties are not learned from each other
  3. ChallengeQuestion: if we do learn one penalty from another, why list all the cases?
  4. ResolutionEach case is needed: making food impure has special reasons that mixing does not
  5. ResolutionMixing alone would not teach the case of making food impure
  6. ResolutionEven the idol-wine pourer pays the fine, following רבי ירמיה
  7. ChallengeIn the version where mixing was added later, why was it needed?
  8. ResolutionWhy מטמא alone would not teach us מנסך
  9. ResolutionWhy מנסך alone would not teach us מטמא
  10. ResolutionWhy the first two would not teach us מדמע
  11. Statementחזקיה: by Torah law, accidental and deliberate are both liable
  12. ResponseThe reason: hidden damage still counts as damage
  13. ResponseWhy חכמים exempted the accidental damager
  14. ChallengeThen the intentional damager should be exempt too
  15. ResolutionSomeone who wants to hurt will surely tell
  16. Statementרבי יוחנן: by Torah law both are exempt
  17. ResponseHidden damage is not counted as damage
  18. ResponseWhy חכמים fined the intentional damager
  19. ChallengeThe case of כהנים who were מפגל on purpose
  20. ChallengeIf unseen damage counts, the ברייתא should say the reason for exempting the שוגג
  21. ResolutionThe ברייתא really means the שוגג is exempt because of תיקון העולם
  22. Challengeרבי אלעזר challenges from work done with מי חטאת and פרה אדומה
  23. Resolutionרבי אלעזר answers himself: the cases involve very indirect actions
  24. ChallengeThe גמרא begins quoting רבא about the water of purification